The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

.Americans purchased a record number of guns of guns in 2012. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Wandering each day outside my office building in Washington, D.C. is a man known for his incessant screaming. Yelling in a foreign language at no one in particular, his voice is one of the constants for those who office around 17th and L Street. It’s probably not politic to say it, but this man would presumably be classified as “crazy” or “insane” if analyzed.

What’s notable about the above is how very unremarkable it is. Most who work in an urban setting can probably describe someone similar who loiters near their own building. In a former life up in New York, a man affectionately referred to as “The Preacher” would give unintelligible sermons to the occupants of office buildings around 48th & Park. No matter the city, those who go to work in crowded business districts probably have stories of seemingly unhinged individuals whom they encounter or witness on a regular basis.

Why is this perhaps relevant to a column about guns and gun control? It is given the view among some that the deinstitutionalization of the insane has yielded a body count.

At first glance it’s perhaps hard to argue with this line of thinking. Only a truly crazy person could be so cruel as to open fire on defenseless individuals in movie theaters, or on innocent children in schools, so why not re-institutionalize the insane? Hindsight reveals the tautological reality that crazy people murder, so why not pre-empt them?

Well, the answer why is that we’re not a police state; that, or we don’t want to be one. What’s amazing about the institutionalization argument is that it’s popular among those who are normally very skeptical of big government. If so, re-institutionalization of the insane should horrify them.

It should because “crazy” or “insane” are two very broad words, and they mean different things to different people. If this is doubted, one need only navigate the crowded walkways of a big state university. There are lots of human oddities on campus, many “normal” people would call them crazy, but we taxpayers probably can’t afford to pay for the housing of all those who appear different at State U, let alone those we encounter on city streets.

Importantly, institutionalization of all who appear insane with an eye on safety would be costly in ways well beyond what can be measured in dollars. Indeed, the greatest cost would be in terms of freedoms handed over to government. John Stuart Mill long ago observed that “The only insecurity which is altogether paralyzing to the active energies of producers is that arising from the government,” and paralysis is what we’d achieve if we empowered government or entities acting for it to rid our streets of “crazy” people who might do us harm.

Though politicians and media members often act as though the opposite is true, government workers aren’t angels. To hand them the power to decide who is and is not fit for polite society is a frightening thought, and one we’ll ideally never become familiar with. Worse, it wouldn’t work. Leaving aside the sick-inducing vision of government officials rounding up those they deem threats to our wellbeing, they’re going to be very wrong – frequently. Harmless individuals will be committed to psychiatric wards, while those with murderous intent will still walk the streets.

As tragic as what happened in Newtown was, empowering the government or even private individuals to round up those they consider crazy would yield its own police-state horrors, and would in no way shield us from future Newtown-style massacres. Particularly in a free society, those who want to kill will be able to. The latter is a terrible reality to contemplate, but much worse would be a truly dystopian society in which allegedly noble government figures would lock up potentially unhinged people with our safety in mind.

Another popular view (Michael Medved in USA Today is the latest to promote it) is that Hollywood is to blame. The latter is an easy target. Full of faddish, emotional people ever ready to disarm the mouthbreathers in flyover country, for a living these same people often make blockbuster films marked by excessive gun violence. It’s said that the movie Sideways and its dismissive description of Merlot led to plummeting sales of the latter, so if Hollywood influences our culture, why not ask it to tone down the violence in its movies?

Though not a fan of blockbuster shoot-em-ups, the above idea would not only infringe on free speech rights, but it’s also truly silly. As evidenced by ticket sales, consumers very much enjoy violent, escapist cinema. Of course, those same ticket sales (along with booming sales of violent video games) for gun laden films reveal that they don’t in any way foster a violent, murderous society. They’re once again escapist, and that’s it. People watch the films and play the games, then return to their normal lives. Once again, only a truly crazy person would or could murder or be needlessly violent toward an innocent.

Still, Hollywood’s hypocrisy is impressive. Though the film industry’s booming nature is to some degree an effect of popular films that glorify gun violence, this didn’t stop celebrities (as Medved reported) from asking President Obama for more controls on gun ownership. Their logic seemingly is less guns, less gun violence.

About the above debate, it’s already occurred, and nothing written here will inform it any more. I’ll only say that as someone who doesn’t own a gun, I’m not fearful of those who do. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post that 35 million American households have guns, but as evidenced by how few of those homes are murderous ones, gun ownership in no way correlates with gun violence.

Furthermore, as Forbes contributor Richard Miniter points out in his latest book, Leading From Behind, “virtually all guns involved in crimes in the United States come from the black market – not licensed gun dealers.” In short, those who want to kill with guns will get them no matter the laws on the books. Laws meant to restrict gun ownership will only disarm some law abiding citizens (others will properly ignore the rules) attempting to protect themselves. If that’s not enough for readers, ask yourself how long it would take a presumed mass murderer to be shot down at a gathering of plain-clothed police officers.

As the title of this piece makes plain, I don’t own a gun. But without minimizing for a second the gun tragedies that have needlessly wrecked lives, it seems that the empowering of the state to reduce gun violence will do little in that regard, all the while doing great damage to our natural rights as human beings to live as we want. It’s a cliché to say that our world is a risky one, but since there’s truth in all clichés, seemingly the only answer to a world that is occasionally violent is to allow the non-violent to protect themselves from the murderous few.